Textual Criticism - The Bible and the Book of Mormon

[_maklelan]

Boy, Mak, you're really hit a nerve!!! LMAO

Yeah, even when Ehrman agrees with conservatives it gives them fits.

[_Servant]

Yeah, well let Ehrman save you then.

Boy, Mak, you're really hit a nerve!!! LMAO

Not at all, most people are unbelievers and would rather put their trust in men than in God.

[_maklelan]

Not at all, most people are unbelievers and would rather put their trust in men than in God.

I'd rather listen to my brain than a belligerent sectarian.

[_Roger]

Okay... so there's obviously a fascinating love-hate relationship going on in the background here which may be influencing the discussion a bit, but the topic of the thread is textual criticism of both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Given that, I assume questions on the Book of Mormon are fair game.

Mak: What textual or extra-BOM evidence exists for reformed Egyptian? How can we critically evaluate whether Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Mormon is accurate? Aside from Joseph Smith, who else has produced a translation into English of any Book of Mormon text or even a fragment? What evidence is there to support the physical existence of cities, battles, migrations and people groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

All the best.

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ ... ohn-byron/

Here is a evangelical scholar who finds problems with the Bible

[_Bazooka]

Now I see a fair question here.
Maklelan, do you have a recent example of sometime when you've changed your mind because the evidence required it?

Yes. Ehrman's book How Jesus Became God changed my mind on how early the notion of Christ's preexistence was. Ehrman provided evidence that showed it was circulating much earlier than I had long thought.

Thanks mak.

[_Gunnar]

Okay... so there's obviously a fascinating love-hate relationship going on in the background here which may be influencing the discussion a bit, but the topic of the thread is textual criticism of both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Given that, I assume questions on the Book of Mormon are fair game.

Mak: What textual or extra-BOM evidence exists for reformed Egyptian? How can we critically evaluate whether Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Mormon is accurate? Aside from Joseph Smith, who else has produced a translation into English of any Book of Mormon text or even a fragment? What evidence is there to support the physical existence of cities, battles, migrations and people groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

All the best.

Mak, Roger raises very significant questions that are extremely damaging, if not fatal to the credibility of the Book of Mormon. Though often brought up on this forum, I have yet to see any answers from LDS proponents (including you) that amount to anything more than very weak or even irrational apologetics. While I greatly admire your scholarship and acumen, and your willingness to question religious dogmatism of all kinds (including "Mormon" dogma), I don't see how you can even begin to escape the conclusion that there is even less justification for claiming the Book of Mormon to be inerrant than for claiming the Bible to be so.

When we add to that the undeniably fraudulent claims about the Book of Abraham being an accurate translation of the Chandler papyri, the undeniable fact that Joseph Smith lied until the day he died about his polygamy, married at least 11 women already legally married to other men, etc., I can't help but be bewildered that someone obviously as intelligent and well-informed as yourself can seriously entertain the notion that Joseph Smith was anything more than, at best, a pious fraud.

[_maklelan]

Okay... so there's obviously a fascinating love-hate relationship going on in the background here which may be influencing the discussion a bit, but the topic of the thread is textual criticism of both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Given that, I assume questions on the Book of Mormon are fair game.

Mak: What textual or extra-BOM evidence exists for reformed Egyptian?

There's plenty of evidence for languages mixing Egyptian scripts with Aramaic or Hebrew languages, or vice versa. There's nothing for the specific language putatively referenced in the Book of Mormon, but we wouldn't really know if we found it.

How can we critically evaluate whether Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Mormon is accurate?

Not really a good way to do it.

Aside from Joseph Smith, who else has produced a translation into English of any Book of Mormon text or even a fragment?

No one of which I'm aware.

What evidence is there to support the physical existence of cities, battles, migrations and people groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

There's limited evidence here and there. There's no proof, but there are certainly things that can be taken as evidence. One example is Brian Stubbs' extensive research into lexical and grammatical relationships between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic languages families.

[_maklelan]

Mak, Roger raises very significant questions that are extremely damaging, if not fatal to the credibility of the Book of Mormon. Though often brought up on this forum, I have yet to see any answers from LDS proponents (including you) that amount to anything more than very weak or even irrational apologetics. While I greatly admire your scholarship and acumen, and your willingness to question religious dogmatism of all kinds (including "Mormon" dogma), I don't see how you can even begin to escape the conclusion that there is even less justification for claiming the Book of Mormon to be inerrant than for claiming the Bible to be so.

There's no justification for thinking of the Book of Mormon as inerrant.

When we add to that the undeniably fraudulent claims about the Book of Abraham being an accurate translation of the Chandler papyri, the undeniable fact that Joseph Smith lied until the day he died about his polygamy, married at least 11 women already legally married to other men, etc., I can't help but be bewildered that someone obviously as intelligent and well-informed as yourself can seriously entertain the notion that Joseph Smith was anything more than, at best, a pious fraud.

Perfectly understandable.

[Guest]

Mak, Roger raises very significant questions that are extremely damaging, if not fatal to the credibility of the Book of Mormon. Though often brought up on this forum, I have yet to see any answers from LDS proponents (including you) that amount to anything more than very weak or even irrational apologetics. While I greatly admire your scholarship and acumen, and your willingness to question religious dogmatism of all kinds (including "Mormon" dogma), I don't see how you can even begin to escape the conclusion that there is even less justification for claiming the Book of Mormon to be inerrant than for claiming the Bible to be so.

There's no justification for thinking of the Book of Mormon as inerrant.

When we add to that the undeniably fraudulent claims about the Book of Abraham being an accurate translation of the Chandler papyri, the undeniable fact that Joseph Smith lied until the day he died about his polygamy, married at least 11 women already legally married to other men, etc., I can't help but be bewildered that someone obviously as intelligent and well-informed as yourself can seriously entertain the notion that Joseph Smith was anything more than, at best, a pious fraud.

Perfectly understandable.

Sigh! I like you very much, maklelan, and I appreciate your understanding, but, for you, that was a remarkably unsatisfying and uninformative answer!